Text Size

Obama’s remarks came as he was outlining how he could help the economy by doing away with various forms of what he called corporate welfare — including tax breaks for Big Oil and corporate jets.

“Why wouldn't we eliminate tax breaks for corporate jets? My attitude is, if you got a corporate jet, you can probably afford to pay full freight, not get a special break for it,” Obama said.

The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), which represents businesses that own private jets, called Obama’s comments “unfortunate.”

“The president's comments completely mischaracterized the businesses and groups that depend on an airplane, the majority of which are small-to-mid-sized businesses, farms, flight schools, medical care providers and emergency responders that use the aircraft to connect communities and grow their businesses,” said Ed Bolen, NBAA’s president, in a statement.

But aside from a continuing public relations problem, the business aviation lobby probably doesn’t have much to worry about.

Obama and Democrats in Congress have sought repeatedly to eliminate a tax break for purchasing business jets, so far unsuccessfully. A proposal was included in Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget request. And Democrats pressed for it to be included in last year’s debt ceiling deal.

The tax break in question allows taxes on corporate jets to be depreciated over a period of five years, as opposed to the seven years allowed for commercial airliners. Obama and Democrats have proposed bringing the corporate jet depreciation schedule in line with that of airliners. It’s estimated to save about $3 billion over 10 years.

The business jet lobby is no stranger to criticism — in 2008, auto industry executives came to D.C. in a fleet of corporate planes to ask for a bailout, igniting a firestorm of outrage for both jet owners and auto executives that has continued off and on to this day.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 2:29 p.m. on October 4, 2012.

Readers' Comments (22)

I remember when clinton pushed for and got a democrat congress to pass a bill instituting a luxury tax on the boat industry. He almost destroyed that segment of business and put thousands of people out of work. Be careful what you ask for when instituting taxes or eliminate tax deductions on an entire industry.

Does anyone the planet travel more lavishly and at greater expense to the citizens of this country than the President? And he wants to criticize people in the private sector who, you know, actually earned their own money to buy their own planes (thus providing JOBS) for using them? Get bent..

Nice spin from the jet set. Waht charities have Lear jets and where are the volunteer "first-responders" not the wealthy, most profitable healthcare providers that use jets.

Compare salaries and benefits with the small airlines. Besides, if a some organization can prove they are proving a desirable community service and NEEDS tax breask to survive then exceptions can be crafted. Cut the typical business BS like teh oil subsidies, corporate farm subsidies, corporate tax loopholes for .006 percenters like Romney receiving a 15% "carried interest" rate on his huge Bain Capital salary and 15% on his idle rich wealth income, etc.

$5 trillion tax cuts + 2 trillion increased defense spending - $1.8trillion total deductions available from the rich to cover it = $5.2trillion to cover with either increased taxes on the middle class or increased additions to the deficit or growth of over 9%.

Yesterday Romney did not claim this balanced except by higher "growth". So expect the taxes passed on to you or through your deductions getting axed or growth greater than 9% or believe in unicorns.

http://www.politico.com... /> "There are not enough itemized deductions to offset his rate cuts," Williams said, adding that eliminating all itemized deductions for all income groups would not cover the tab for the proposed cuts."There's just not enough money there."

Oh thanks President MORON, this coming on the heels of fact that we the tax payers are paying for 30 assistants to Moooooochele and over 1.4 billion a year to keep you in comfort in your cacoon protected by the yellow sycophants in the media.

Wasn't this already tried? Instead of punishing millionaires, the tax on corporate jets led to the layoffs of union assembly line workers, bag handlers, ticket agents, pilots, and flight attendants. The millionaires just buy other toys or tools. Obama just has no clue where jobs come from.

Wayknow - he doesn't want them sold to foreign companies he wants them owned by the federal government and have all of the mechanics, pilots and flight crews be federal empoyees. And paid for by your tax dollars.

Ha, ha, ha... A farmer, a nurse and a small business owner in a corporate jet. Now that's funny. When was the last time anyone saw a farmer boarding Mitt's plane? I'm shocked that this idiot forgot to mention teachers, police officers and firefighters. Your typical 8 seater jet crowd. LOL...

The reason for writing them off in 5 years as opposed to 7 is because the per-passenger cost to operate is significantly higher for a 6-seat Learjet than for a 200-seat Boeing. Also, as a general rule, the bizjet is used for in-house transportation, not as an income earner.

The bizjet is a capability extender for mid-d businesses which are spread across large areas. If the company is based in, say, Las Vegas, an important executive can make a quick jump to Salt Lake City, LA, San Francisco, etc, in far less time that it takes to go commercial. For example, my uncle (current CEO of the hui) needed to get from LAS to Los Angeles ASAP, to deal with a crisis involving a patient who was on her way to the Philippines. We were wheels-up 20 minutes after he got the phone call, and we were at LAX in less time than he would have had to wait at McCarran for the Southwest flight which he otherwise would have had to take.

That flight saved the family several thousand dollars and made it possible for the patient to make her flight rather than having to wait until the next day (which she would have had to do if we had only had commercial airliners to make the trip).

When you consider executives with larger companies, their time is so valuable that they need to work in a "flying office" as they travel.

J Golden Rockwell, You lost me at "hui." I don't know that word, so the rest of the story was pretty meaningless. Your argument would have been more effective if you had provided evidence that the expected useful life of your jet is about five years. Is that about right?